Sports

Tyres in Formula 1

The wheels fall off

LEWIS HAMILTON is known for his forthrightness, but the Formula 1 driver’s comments over the team radio at the Spanish grand prix on May 12th were particularly frank. Talking to his race engineer, Mr Hamilton protested: “I can’t drive any slower.”

He wasn’t quite right. Mr Hamilton, then in 13th position, managed to raise himself to 12th by the finish. Still, having started in second place on the grid, he suffered the indignity of being lapped by the eventual winner. Yet his outburst over the radio was not purely about pace: it was emblematic of the wider problem facing Formula 1. It simply isn’t exciting any more.

Those looking only at the data may disagree. Positions chop and change more readily and regularly than in many previous years. But to those watching the races, it has become apparent that on-track jostling has been replaced by something much less enthralling. Drivers are no longer competing against each other, but against their tyres.

Since 2011 Formula 1 tyres have been provided by a single manufacturer, Pirelli. The Italian company was given this season’s contract by the governing body of the sport, the Federation International de l'Automobile (FIA), on the basis that it help reinvigorate races, which had become more like processions than true contests. Specifically, Formula 1 higher-ups requested that the tyres encourage racing conditions such as those found in the 2010 Canadian grand prix, a particularly exciting affair with plenty of overtaking.

Pirelli produced tyres that wear more quickly than those used in previous years in a process called delamination. As tyres degrade, racers are forced to make pit stops to swap them for new unblemished ones. Because pit stops have the effect of shaking up the race standings, in theory this improves competition. In practice, instead of an expansive race against fellow drivers, those behind the wheel of Formula 1 cars are now simply circling the track, trying to preserve their tyres and limit pit stops. The company has blamed a telescoped testing period on outdated cars for the swift degradation of its tyres, but since the Monaco grand prix on May 26th (in which racing rather than rubber dominated the discussion) it seems that a truce has been brokered.

Well, almost. Pirelli is likely to introduce a new tyre compound at the next grand prix, in Montreal, on June 9th—though three teams, including Ferrari, have yet to ratify the tyre change. The new wheels are a response to drivers' complaints about the excess degradation, and were created after the FIA refused Pirelli's offer of reverting to the tyre compound used the previous season. The problem is that the manufacturer appears to have given one team, Mercedes GP, an unfair look at the incoming tyres.

Mercedes's cars were used to test the new tyres in the three days following the contentious Spanish grand prix earlier this month. Testing with a single team during a season is prohibited for fear of giving an unfair advantage to one competitor. The FIA may refer the team and the tyre manufacturer to a sporting tribunal for the test, which could see Mercedes docked points, or expelled from the championship altogether. Certainly the brouhaha is unlikely to strengthen Pirelli's hand as it looks to secure a contract for 2014 and later seasons.

Things are rarely docile in the hypercompetitive world of Formula 1. If there is not a controversy, team owners and drivers can often manufacture one. Yet the tirade over tyres is a serious one for the sport. People tune in—and advertisers pay—for competitive races. Constructors make minute tweaks to try and gain an advantage over their rivals. Pirelli's tweak, at the insistence of the FIA, appears to have been too heavy-handed. Corrective action of the kind Pirelli is enacting should be taken (after all, no one benefits from tyres unfit for purpose), but a light touch is required to calm nerves as frayed as the tyres.

Readers' comments

The Economist, despite not being a sports-focused newspaper, can usually be relied upon to provide a unique and refreshing perspective on sports matters.
Here, however, is the exception. This article is very weak. It is confusingly simplistic and skips lightly over the range of issues at hand with Formula 1 tyres. It also makes scandalously broad personal judgements about the sport ("Formula 1 ... simply isn’t exciting any more") and others which are simply untrue ("Formula 1 cars are now simply circling the track, trying to preserve their tyres and limit pit stops").
That is before one even covers the typo spotted by another reader below, and factual inaccuracies: de-lamination is where the entire tread of the tyre detaches catastrophically from the carcass of the tyre, usually from a serious cut from something sharp. What you describe above is simply normal tyre wear from road abrasion.
The current tyre debate is being driven by a few teams who are not having as much success this year as they have enjoyed in the past few. The tyres have not changed dramatically in the last couple of years (they have been Pirellis attempting to adhere to the same Canada 2010 race aspirations)and yet the complaints have started suddenly at the beginning of this season. It also coincides with one of the most exciting and unpredictable periods of Formula 1 recent history with four different race winners in only six races (in 2012 there were 7 different winners in the first 7 races). You need to look a bit deeper into the sport to get to the nub of this debate, rather than being sucked into Red Bull's propaganda.
To all those looking for insight into the current Formula 1 tyre debate, please disregard this ill-informed article.

Simple solution to F1's monotony: Watch motorbike racing instead. With the Isle of Man TT on TV over the next 2 weeks, why would anybody watch cars anyway.
.
And Marc Marquez' no-prisoners approach to MotoGP will make it a joy to watch all season.
.
4 wheels move the body, 2 wheels move the heart.

Throughout the history of F1, the drivers have always had to conserve tires. It wasn't until the modern era, when the cars became high-downforce featherweights and the tremendous width of the tires became a marketing attribute, that tire technology advanced sufficiently to make tires which were virtually indestructible. The FIA attempted to reintroduce degradation and reduce total grip with tire grooves. Later the FIA banned pit stops, which merely increased the development of longevity technology.

Tire degradation has always existed, along with drivers who manage the reliability of their equipment. Pirelli have re-introduced tire wear by artificial means in order to maintain the current appearance of the cars, particularly the aggressive look of wide tires. Since tire wear has basically always been part of F1, the author's quarrel must surely revolve around the methodology of tire degradation, not the existence of tire degradation.

Poorly written article. The facts in the are skewed and are highly opinionated.
Seems as if either the author doesn't follow/understand the sport at all and has posted derogatory comments based on someone else's misinformed bias.

Although not without some merit, this article is indeed a bit biased, and I can't help but think this relates to Mr Hamilton being British and Mercedes being the worst car at conserving tyres this season. In Barcelona the Ferraris and Raikkonen's Lotus didn't seem to have as much trouble racing fast as did the two poor Mercedes cars.

The problem isnt that simple as ever. Dirty air causes a slip stream effect or drafting to others. Simply put it decreases the head wind the following car faces and also disturbs it. This is great in a straight line because it decreases drag. But formula 1 cars rely on that air flow to produce downforce through the bends and as such losing cornering speed.
I don't think anything as drastic as you are suggesting is necessary. It is possible to make the aerodynamics less effected by slipstream by using ground effects to a greater extent. Removing spoilers also vastly reduces the amount of disturbed air. I certainly thing these directions need to be tried first.
Personally i would love to see a passive system introduced similar to drs that compensates for the lose due to following a car but perhaps and then removes the current DRS system as it does feel contrived. Maybe flexible front wings is the answer but i am no aerodynamicist.

What i am proposing is cars which can be raced by the drivers and do not need the crutches of weak types and DRS.
It would still be nimble cars around various corners
but with beasts that the drivers could throw around more.

This literally is the old stuff...... they switched from kevlar bands to steel
Delamination is a safe method of failure.....watch old f1 if you don't believe me
The center lug for an f1 car costs more than a new car......what does f1 tyre performance have to do with a road car?
Pirelli is paid on a yearly contract, individual tyres are free, just hand pirelli 4 million dollars for the year and they'll keep your team supplied with the appropriate number of tyres per FIA rules.

Not very good article...
1. watching red bull win every single week is somehow more exciting than a close grid, ehrm?
2. delamination looks bad, yet this is how a steel band tire should react to catastrophic damage, remember these are not the soft kevlar rubber bands of yesteryear, they are DESIGNED to fail this way, despite what the uniformed assert, this is safe way for the current tech to fail
3. do you really not remember how god damn boring f1 was until 2012?

The tyres and the equally contrived DRS system are an attempt to fix a much deeper malaise.

Formula 1 is utterly boring because of the stinking Aero era we are in.
The cars are basically aeroplanes which stick to the ground instead of generating lift.
Vast sums are spend on modelling and wind tunnel testing.

What this means is that cars depend on smooth clear airflow for performance.
Guess what happens when you try to overtake somebody on the racetrack?
Turbulent 'Dirty air' causes your car to lose performance, making overtaking arduous.
All the fiddly bits on the car are very delicate and expensive. The need to preserve them leads to drivers pussyfooting around each other instead of banging wheels and fighting for position.

F1 needs to ban aero parts, mandate top speeds upto 400 kmh and get cars with grunt and strength.

That is a problem that plagues all motorsport not just F1, but I think it is not primarily/only the 'dirty air' - too much aero and downforce make cars too stable, you can't see delicate slides and adjustments while cornering.

This also reduces the gap between bad, good and great drivers. No wonder F1 produces ever younger champions, these days it is more important to be an athlete than to have experience...

It is great news that Formula One teams will be using new type of tires in the race this year. It is good that they experiment and test in each step they take and make changes according to the situation.